Author Archive

Some intuition: Recall that if is a closed hyperbolic manifold
then is word-hyperbolic. However, a lot of interesting hyperbolic manifolds are not closed.

Example: Let be the figure 8 knot.

Then the complement admits a complete hyperbolic metric and is of finite volume.

So, here we have an example of a hyperbolic manifold which is not compact but is of finite volume. This is almost as which is almost as natural as being closed.

is homotopy equivalent to , the complement of a thickened in .

is a compact manifold with boundary and its interior admits a hyperbolic metric. The boundary of is homeomorphic to a 2-torus, so induces a map . By Dehn’s lemma, the map is injective so cannot be word hyperbolic. The point is that acts nicely on but no cocompactly so the Svarc=Milnor lemma does not apply.

The torus boundary component of corresponds to a cusp of .

The point is that we can use cusped manifolds like to build a lot of manifolds and in particular a lot of hyperbolic manifolds.

Take and a solid Torus .

Choose a homeomorphism

Definition: The manifold is obtained from by Dehn filling .

We now want to understand what we have done to . The map induces a map :

The surjectivity of follows from the fact that is a homeomorphism. The Seifert Van Kampen theorem implies that , where denotes the normal closure of .

Gromov-Thurston theorem: Let M be any compact hyperbolic manifold and be a component of homeomorphic to a 2-torus for all but finitely many choices of

the Dehn filling is hyperbolic.

Note: by finitely many we mean finitely many maps up to homotopy.

This is a very fruitful way of building hyperbolic manifolds. The next question to ask is whether we can do the same thing for groups. So, now we will try to develop a group theoretic version of this picture.

Let be a group theoretic graph with the induced length metric. Construct a new graph called the combinatorial horoball on as follows: Define the vertices . There are two sorts of edges in . We say that and are joined by a (horizontal) edge if and . We say that and are joined by a (vertical) edge for all .

For large enough and will have distance one and iff iff .

Exercise 27: (A). For , .

(B). For any connected , is Gromov hyperbolic .

Let be a group and let be a finite set of finitely generated subgroups of . Choose a finite generating set for such that for each , generate . Then contains natural copies of .

Theorem 12 (Gromov): Let be torsion-free -hyperbolic group. If such that , then for all sufficiently large , .

Remark: The torsion-free hypothesis is not necessary, but it allows us to avoid some technicalities. For instance, it is a non-obvious fact that an infinite hyperbolic group contains a copy of .

For the rest of this lecture will be a torsion-free -hyperbolic group, where are primitive (i.e. not proper powers).

Recall that for torsion-free -hyperbolic, primitive implies that .

If and do not commute we can show there is some point on arbitrarily far from .Hence we have the following lemma.

Lemma 13:

If and do not commute there is some point on arbitrarily far from .

Proof: Suppose not. That means such that such that . So is in . But the Cayley graph is locally finite so has finitely many elements. By the Pigeonhole Principle such that for some . Then . But then . .

For a moment view and as the horizontal and vertical geodesics in . For two points on and on , we can argue that the geodesic between them curves toward the origin.

And so we have Lemma 14.

Lemma 14: There exists such that , .

Proof:

Recall that by is a quasi-isometric embedding. So by Theorem 6, and

By Lemma 13 choose such that. Choose such that . Now, must be -close to so for some point on the geodesic between and , . Then .

For a subgroup , one can choose a closest point projection which is -equivariant. (Write . Choose where and are close and declare to be -equivariant.) is typically not a group homomorphism.

We’re interested in and .In , there is some such that either or .

Lemma 15: such that , or .

Proof:

Let . WLOG, is -close to and since is the closest point to (in particular compared to ). So . .

Now we can prove the theorem.

Proof of Theorem 12:

The idea is to use the Ping-Pong Lemma on the Cayley graph.

Let and let , where is provided by Lemma 15. For all we have and likewise for all we have . In particular, .

Let . By -equivariance,

for any . In particular,

by the triangle inequality. Similarly,

for all and all . Because and are quasi-isometrically embedded, it follows that and for .